Jump to content

The guidelines say to do this...


greykitties

Recommended Posts

The guidelines say to bring issues to the forums and maybe Groundspeak will modify their stance, so here goes.

 

I recently tried to put out some new caches on a trail that I have been putting caches on for four years. In order to hike this trail you have to obtain a permit which you have to send away for. All of a sudden this is apparently not allowed, even though it was negotiated as agreeable four years ago. The problem seems to stem from the possability of identity theft.

 

Now, I am a serious privacy advocate, having had an identity theft issue in the past. But I think *I* should be allowed to determine if I am willing to 'take the risk' to provide information for a permit just as *I* determine if I am going to take any other risk involved in Geocaching.

 

One of my biggest objection is that while they are forbidding the obtaining permits to SEARCH for a cache, they are allowing the obtaining of permits to PLACE a cache. Isn't this a double standard?

 

What do you think? Do you think GS should allow us to make our own decisions? Do you think they are being fair in allowing this in one case and not in another? (and I realize the ramifications of saying you can't have to obtain a permit to place a cache!)

Link to comment

It would seem to me this is kind of thing can invite trouble. I envision cachers wanting to go after these caches and ignoring or not seeing the cache page telling them they need to apply for a permit. So they go after it anyway, upsetting the land owner and giving Geocaching another black eye. But the need for a permit suggests the area may be fenced in and you are required to go through a check point first. Making things even worse if a cacher breaks in to get at the cache.

Link to comment

Based on what you are saying alone, I would side with you. If it is publicly accessible, albeit with some hoop-jumping required, it should be fine. If I want to apply for a permit to go after a cache, that should be my business. But is there, as there usually seems to be, more to this story?

 

Not really much else to the story, if you apply for a permit anyone may access the location. This is a potential 'rail-to-trail' site, so there is no check point or control. The cache writeups always made it very clear you you needed to obtain a permit, I can't control if people went without one (as no COs can control if someone enters any location when not allowed, like after hours). Caching was explained to the landowner and he agreed to this process. In getting a permit one of the things that is made brought to your attention is no trespassing OFF the trail on all the adjacent land, this is the case for geocaching, hiking, biking or anything else on the trail.

 

I do have other reasons I think their disallowing this is wrong, but the biggest reason is I should be able to decide for myself (at least those of us here in America expect this!), and I think they have a double standard.

Link to comment

It would seem to me this is kind of thing can invite trouble. I envision cachers wanting to go after these caches and ignoring or not seeing the cache page telling them they need to apply for a permit. So they go after it anyway, upsetting the land owner and giving Geocaching another black eye. But the need for a permit suggests the area may be fenced in and you are required to go through a check point first. Making things even worse if a cacher breaks in to get at the cache.

 

No cache owner can control seekers and if they break the rules or not!! That was not really GSs objection anyway. Seems to me like ANY cache could invite trouble...

Link to comment

There are other requirements for some caches, such as needing to use a credit card to rent a boat for a water cache, etc. where one submits some information to a third party.

 

In addition, in the case of needing a permit for this trail, I feel that the owner is CYA since there was an attempt to have the trail taken over by the county and the county refused to do so (for many reasons) but the owner is encouraging people to use the trail for various activities such as biking, hiking, horseback riding, etc.

Link to comment

Based on what you are saying alone, I would side with you. If it is publicly accessible, albeit with some hoop-jumping required, it should be fine. If I want to apply for a permit to go after a cache, that should be my business. But is there, as there usually seems to be, more to this story?

 

Not really much else to the story, if you apply for a permit anyone may access the location. This is a potential 'rail-to-trail' site, so there is no check point or control. The cache writeups always made it very clear you you needed to obtain a permit, I can't control if people went without one (as no COs can control if someone enters any location when not allowed, like after hours). Caching was explained to the landowner and he agreed to this process. In getting a permit one of the things that is made brought to your attention is no trespassing OFF the trail on all the adjacent land, this is the case for geocaching, hiking, biking or anything else on the trail.

 

I do have other reasons I think their disallowing this is wrong, but the biggest reason is I should be able to decide for myself (at least those of us here in America expect this!), and I think they have a double standard.

 

I'm really confused here, WHO is disallowing WHAT?

Who are THEY?

Link to comment

Full disclosure up front- greykitties is my sister so I know about this issue and many of the details. But the bottom line is that it seems to me like every cache "invites" people to potentially go places that are going to upset people. I doubt Walmarts really want people driving around their parking lots after they're closed for the night lifting up lightposts, and in some states, there are signs posted saying that if you aren't a customer at a location, then it is trespassing, so in some places, anytime some places a cache under a lamppost at a Target, they may be actually "encouraging" people to trespass, or alternatety I guess everyone could go inside the Target and make a purchase, but then it becomes a commercial cache, which isn't allowed.

 

Every one of us chooses whether or not to pursue any cache. I'd choose not to pursue a cache right now that required me to rappel off of a cliff, because of some health problems, although at one time I would have loved to try that. I choose not to do some puzzle caches because they require me to do more than I want to do. I often choose not to pursue caches in certain areas of town because I know it's a bad location and not safe- shouldn't that be up to me to decide? Or should GS start monitoring things so much that they disallow caches that aren't wise for people to go to at night because it's in gang territory? No, they shouldn't do that, we should make informed decisions when we contemplate going after any cache and if we decide the risk is too much for our personal comfort level, then we can forgo any cache we choose to forgo. So in this case, if someone isn't comfortable sending away for a permit, then they simply ignore those caches, much like some people ignore puzzle caches or multis or caches in gang territory...

 

So there is no finite line that can ever be drawn as to what any person might be required to jump through to find a cache. Heck, handicapped people could start complaining that caches that are placed in a non-wheelchair accessible location shouldn't be allowed under the ADA because it's not safe for them to go try to get up a mountain. So it always comes down to judgment, which unfortunately is made by humans and there are going to be inconsistencies and LOTS of grey areas. But it does seem to me that in this case, the imposition to a cacher isn't really anything more than when I've gone and cached in parks that require me to buy a permit on the spot and then ask for and write down my drivers license number and my license plate info- that could be used illicitly- they could be writing down mroe than that info, like my DOB and address. And I think that what's required to get the permit to find these caches was much less intrusive than that so even though I understand GS asking for clarification and not just publishing the caches without asking some questions- if they did that, there'd be no point in even having reviews- I think these should have been published. And besides that, you know that there are many people out there who would have gotten around this by just NOT putting any of the permit info in and then letting the chips fall, so I think that a CO also deserves some credit and consideration when they are honest and expose anything like this head on. don't think there are many of us who could honestly say that every cahe we've ever hidden has been properly "placed with permission" but we all endorse that when we submit a cache for publication, and in this case she was addressing those issues and getting permission in a totally legit and above-board way, again not like the countless lamppost hides hidden at Walmarts...

Link to comment

And one more smart-alecky response... I'm betting that you probably have to do more than fill out a simple mail away application if you want to have any chance of ever getting into this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gc1be91

 

Somehow I think someone, somewhere, would be wanting to know an awful lot about anyone going to that cache... but then it generates publicity for geocaching, so I guess maybe that makes it OK?

 

I found this on the NASA site after I googled how to get to the ISS:

 

Q. Can I apply to take a ride on the Space Shuttle? Can I be the first kid in Space?

A. NASA has no immediate plans to send children, teenagers or any other general citizens into space. For the near future at least, space flight remains too risky and too expensive for anyone but highly trained astronauts and payload specialists. However, one of our goals is to help industry develop new rocket systems that would make space flight much more simple and routine, so that many more people could go into orbit in the future.

 

So it seems like I'd have to fill out an application of some sort... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment

It appears the reviewer is applying this section of the guidelines

Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

However, as far as I can tell, you don't create an account or provide information to another website. It appears however that you download an application for a permit. This itself might cause an issue with the following section

In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published.

Unfortunately the site posts a .doc file instead of text or PDF, and some reviewers might be uncomfortable allowing this file even though it appears to be a simple .doc without macros.

 

The application does ask for your name, address, phone number, and email. You mail in the application with a SASE and it is returned with a signature that validates it. There is no fee.

 

I would bet there are other caches that require permits with just as much information in order to hunt. There are certainly other caches that require a fee to find. I wonder if there was not an active clickable link to the Friends of the DRHT website, if there would still be any guidelines issue. Simply state a permit is required and give the URL but not make it clickable.

 

I also wonder if this is a case where an appeal to Groundspeak might get the cache published. It's certainly the sort of thing that someone at HQ might feel deserves an exception, but is the sort of exception that a volunteer reviewer might feel is outside of their authority to give.

Link to comment

It appears the reviewer is applying this section of the guidelines

Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

However, as far as I can tell, you don't create an account or provide information to another website. It appears however that you download an application for a permit. This itself might cause an issue with the following section

In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published.

Unfortunately the site posts a .doc file instead of text or PDF, and some reviewers might be uncomfortable allowing this file even though it appears to be a simple .doc without macros.

 

The application does ask for your name, address, phone number, and email. You mail in the application with a SASE and it is returned with a signature that validates it. There is no fee.

 

I would bet there are other caches that require permits with just as much information in order to hunt. There are certainly other caches that require a fee to find. I wonder if there was not an active clickable link to the Friends of the DRHT website, if there would still be any guidelines issue. Simply state a permit is required and give the URL but not make it clickable.

 

I also wonder if this is a case where an appeal to Groundspeak might get the cache published. It's certainly the sort of thing that someone at HQ might feel deserves an exception, but is the sort of exception that a volunteer reviewer might feel is outside of their authority to give.

 

i don't see how that guideline applies to this cache, to me an application form does not fall within the intention of that guideline

 

there are certainly a lot of caches out there where entry fees, trail permits etc are required

Link to comment

Personally, I think the rules for cache placement are too restrictive, and don't allow cache hiders enough latitude to truly innovate. In the Virginia-area, I haven't seen many groundbreaking NEW cache types in a few years, other than the ones promoted by Garmin and GS that require expensive new equipment. I fault the cache hiding guidelines for that, but that's just my opinion. I understand that there's a reason those rules are in place, but I think there are occasions when the rules need to be rationally applied, even bent. Isn't this why we have human reviewers, and not some automated cache-evaluation computer program?

 

In my opinion, this is one of those occasions where the rules need to be set aside after human evaluation. To my eyes, I see no valid argument for blocking this cache listing on the basis of "accounts on third-party web sites" or "executable code". Neither applies.

 

And if the issue is the permit and "id theft," then cachers aren't obligated to even go find the cache any more than I'm obliged to go find all the lamppost caches hidden around Richmond, VA. Cachers can use their heads and evaluate whether or not the "risk" of pursuing a cache is worth it. I mean, there's a 5/5 cache in the Raleigh area that includes climbing a smoke stack from a 19th century brick factory, and dropping off a shear cliff face and a bridge over a rocky river. So if all the caches are supposed to be squeaky-clean and "no risk" then why are such "dangerous" caches even posted? There are all sorts of "risks" involved with caching. ID theft from dropping my wallet in a parking lot? Maybe I'll even be bitten by a snake or twist my ankle with nobody around to help me limp home? But I don't see those as valid reasons for dropping all those cache listings where the aforementioned "risks" apply, do you? Aren't those risks "dangerous" at some level too?

 

If you don't like the associated risks of a cache, then add the listing to your block list and move on. That's what I do.

 

In my opinion, there's a point where the nanny-like rules get a bit silly for thinking, rational caching adults. We need to think for ourselves and evaluate whether any particular "risk" with a cache seems worth it, and proceed from there.

 

-Brent (bhoard)

Edited by bhoard
Link to comment

Another point on the whole safety issue, which seems to be at least part of GS's thinking in denying this cache... I understand if the rules change to not allow certain types of caches but certain ones are grandfathered in. For example, I know they no longer allow caches where you have to enter a business, because I tried to get one published. There are ones out there but they said they're no longer allowed and the ones in existence are grandfathered. I say fine in that case, since they changed the way the game is played, even though I don't agree, their reasons for making the change were benign.

 

But if the change is due to safety concerns, then shouldn't other caches that have the same safety concerns be archived? I hate to say that, because I don't want to see greykitties' other caches on this trail go away, but it's rather hippocritical if they say that one cache can't be published due to safety concerns but basically say that another cache with the same safety concern can be allowed to stand. So unsafe caches, as long as they were published before a certain date, are allowed to stand? If that is what's done, then they aren't really protecting "safety". Again, the caches like ones in businesses, that changed for maybe philosophical reasons and thoughts about how caching should go I won't argue over, but if the reason for a change is truly because of wanting people to be "safe", then how can you justify "we'll protect your safety on caches published after such-and-such a date, but boy, if you want to go after a cache placed before that date, we don't care about your safety"? The same "risk" would be there if I was a new cacher who went after the already present caches and so had to get the permit, versus if I was a cacher in that area who'd already done all the trail caches and now needed a new permit to do the new ones; but the new cacher could take that risk but the old cacher couldn't? So we protect the safety of some people and not of others?

Link to comment

I initially sided with Groundspeak on this issue until I read all the responses, visited one of the cache pages and the trail's web page. I have changed my mind and believe these caches should be allowed. If we are to make this privacy requirement on all caches then all caches will have to be removed. I see it this way; To even walk the streets of the USA you are required to carry identification and you have had to give your information to somebody. This goes for vehicle registration, insurance, and Groundspeak themselves. Can I cache Anonymous....NO. The trail has a privacy policy just like everyone else who gathers information and if the national parks were to allow caching within the parks, many of us would get permits for backcountry caches.

Link to comment

 

 

I'm really confused here, WHO is disallowing WHAT?

Who are THEY?

 

read the NOTE on the cache page

 

Okay, she's trying to get a cache published. The OP led me to believe that she was trying to search for a cache on a permit trail and Groundspeak wouldn't let her. Thus my confusion.

Link to comment

Now wait a minute. It is OK to have to go to a website, download a form, provide a bunch of personal information, and register in order to get permisssion to PLACE cache in areas that require it, but having to do essentially the same to get a permit to access a trail to FIND a cache makes it improper to hide a cache? Am I the only one that doesn't get that? :blink:

 

If the link is the problem, perhaps if the cache page were changed to remove the link and say something like "Before attempting this cache, all seekers must obtain a use permit from Whoever Controls This Space." would remove that little obstacle. Leave it to the cacher to do the Googling to find the form.

Link to comment

Now wait a minute. It is OK to have to go to a website, download a form, provide a bunch of personal information, and register in order to get permisssion to PLACE cache in areas that require it, but having to do essentially the same to get a permit to access a trail to FIND a cache makes it improper to hide a cache? Am I the only one that doesn't get that? :blink:

 

That is a great argument. In fact, if I were the OP, I'd use that for my appeal.

Link to comment

Now wait a minute. It is OK to have to go to a website, download a form, provide a bunch of personal information, and register in order to get permisssion to PLACE cache in areas that require it, but having to do essentially the same to get a permit to access a trail to FIND a cache makes it improper to hide a cache? Am I the only one that doesn't get that? :blink:

 

If the link is the problem, perhaps if the cache page were changed to remove the link and say something like "Before attempting this cache, all seekers must obtain a use permit from Whoever Controls This Space." would remove that little obstacle. Leave it to the cacher to do the Googling to find the form.

 

Now I am confused. I have not hidden a cache in a while. Does anyone have the reference from the guidelines that prohibits hiding a cache where a hiking permit is required? I have several caches in such an area. Link to site for information necessary to obtain the permit is provided on the cache pages. Mail in, if you belong to a certain trail organization, or, otherwise, in person. Yes, you have to provide your driver's license or photo thereof. So, if anyone has a link to this requirement in the guidelines, I'd like to see it before I hide any more caches in that area.

Or, is there something else that we are not hearing???

Link to comment

Now wait a minute. It is OK to have to go to a website, download a form, provide a bunch of personal information, and register in order to get permisssion to PLACE cache in areas that require it, but having to do essentially the same to get a permit to access a trail to FIND a cache makes it improper to hide a cache? Am I the only one that doesn't get that? :blink:

 

If the link is the problem, perhaps if the cache page were changed to remove the link and say something like "Before attempting this cache, all seekers must obtain a use permit from Whoever Controls This Space." would remove that little obstacle. Leave it to the cacher to do the Googling to find the form.

 

Now I am confused. I have not hidden a cache in a while. Does anyone have the reference from the guidelines that prohibits hiding a cache where a hiking permit is required? I have several caches in such an area. Link to site for information necessary to obtain the permit is provided on the cache pages. Mail in, if you belong to a certain trail organization, or, otherwise, in person. Yes, you have to provide your driver's license or photo thereof. So, if anyone has a link to this requirement in the guidelines, I'd like to see it before I hide any more caches in that area.

Or, is there something else that we are not hearing???

 

It seems that the only reference to this is where the reviewer edited the OP's cache page.

 

NOTE FROM REVIEWER: On 1/14/11 Groundspeak determined that the permit system used for this cache is no longer allowed, as the Guidelines do not allow for a collection of personal information. As this cache was published in good faith, it will be allowed to stand, grandfathered, but new caches which require the permit will not be published.

Link to comment

Ok- to address some peoples comments-

I have appealed to GS, not just the reviewer.

 

I read the guidelines throughly, the rule 'no permits to seek a cache' is not there. I think it was just made up, and even though this 'decision' was made over a month ago, the new guideline has yet to be published.

 

BREAKING NEWS: I just went to grab a quote from the guidelines, and I discovered that the guidelines have been updated *today*. However, reading through them again (with their new linked format- which makes it harder to get the whole picture BTW) I STILL don't see any reference to 'no permits to seek a cache' although I see this wording seems to have been removed:

Reference Off Limit Physical Cache:

If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page

So, it look like:

-The guideline disallowing permits to seek a cache has still not been published

-the obvious descrepancy of NOT allowing permits to SEEK a cache while allowing them to HIDE a cache is being hidden.

 

Also unless I missed it- they seem to have removed the paragraph that encouraged people to bring issues like this to the forums!!!

Link to comment

BTW- I was not going to do this, but if the general population wants me to I will post a copy of my 'appeal' and the GS 'response'. It more throughly covers my arguments.

 

If you are able to do so, please do, greykitties. Please do. As many others are, I'm concerned at what I see as a gradual erosion of what is considered "permissible" for creating and listing a cache.

Edited by bhoard
Link to comment

Like Doctor A, full disclosure, I am the Mother of one greykitty and Doctor A. I also have been slightly involved in the trail which is currently the object of discussion. A bit of history- The land was purchased by an individual who saw possibilities of a rail to trail development. As mentioned earlier, the county supervisors declined to participate and have a "public" trail. The owner and others in the community have spent many, many hours working on this trail to make it accessible for anyone who wishes to use it. There are some neighbors who did now want a trail in their backyards even though the rail property has been in existance since the Second World War. There is a fairly large group of people who support the trail and work to have various activities occur in connection with the trail.

The BOD of the DRHT asked me about two years ago to hold an event which would be publicized to the members of the group so that geocaching could be introduced to the (loosely knit group of) "members." They saw it as another use for this resource in the community. I re-state, I believe that the owner of the land is attempting to Cover (CYA) and protect himself from a legal standpoint by granting the permits. There is no charge for them and the BOD suggests the SASE so there is not a cost to the owner who issues the permits.

It is unfortunate that this permit is being looked at as "invasion of privacy". I agree with the posters who have mentioned that there are places which charge fees to enter. There are places which obtain information as you enter which equates to the same thing as is asked for with the permit.

Knowing the trail, I, personally, can "do" this trail and there are many places which I cannot "do". I am not wheelchair but I do have some physical limitations which mean there are caches I cannot do (Mr vaetanone has to do some of them alone.) "We" have placed caches which I could not seek out but I did help place some of the caches which have been grandfathered on the trail.

We have only had positive comments from those people who have hunted the caches and many have returned to bike or hike at a later date.

It does seem that a reasonable accommodation might be made in this case. From the first, those of us who have placed caches have indicated that a permit should be obtained but I doubt if everyone has done so.

Link to comment

Here is the 'appeal' and 'response' from Groundspeak. I will not include all the back and forth before it got to that point. So, without further edification here you go:

 

My 'Appeal':

HI, I am glad to hear from you. I have taken quite a bit of time to mull over what you had to say, and would like for you to consider the following...

 

First, the caches on the trail were not 'published in good faith'. I think it's only fair to call it what it is- they were published as agreed upon over four years ago. We asked the landowner if we could make up a 'one day' pass that could be printed from the cache listing. He did not want to do that, so this was the agreed upon route, done with agreement by Dot Plotter.

 

Second, it does sound like you are saying 'no providing on information', period, which is MUCH better than what honeychile originally said. She seemed to think that putting such information in the hands of a governmental organization would be safer vs a private company! NOT- I have had an identity theft issue, which was BECAUSE of the US government!

 

That being said, if you are not going to allow cachers to provide information to SEEK a cache, then should you be allowing cachers to provide information to HIDE a cache?? The same requirement for putting your personal information out there is at issue. If you are trying to 'protect us from ourselves' (as in protect us from the ability to CHOOSE to provide PII to others) then it should cut both ways…. Of course your problem would be that saying you can't fill out a permit for placing a cache would cut out an awful lot of parks which REQUIRE a permit to place a cache. But, why is it OK to require a permit to place a cache, but not to seek one?

Reference Off Limit Physical Cache:

If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page

 

On another note, if you are doing this to 'protect us from ourselves' cachers must make decisions on a daily basis that may put us in harms way. (Have you ever heard the saying 'It must have been a good day caching- I drew blood') As you can see giving out information, sticking my hand somewhere, walking through the weeds that might contain ticks, even driving to a cache, are all potentially dangerous decisions that I as an individual (and particularly as an American, although I realize caching is international) should be allowed to make for myself.

You say that you cannot be required to access another website if required to create an account or provide PII. However, you have already required us to log into a website, Geocaching.com and provide information to you. This was a risk too. So, is it OK to take that risk with Groundspeak, but not with others? I am sure you are painfully aware that geocaching.com can be hacked just as easily as other sites, so by collecting (harvesting??) information you are also opening cachers up to risk. Beyond that you specifically require going to another website (although related) to accomplish Wherigo caches. If I choose to persue these caches I have to not only log into another site, I have to download something that might contain malicious code! Here again, if it is a risk to provide information it should cut both ways. How can you prohibit going to another site on the one hand and then require it on the other.

References: Wherigo caches

The cartridges must reside at Wherigo.com.

 

Third On the subject of harvesting (as referred to in a previous email). I feel that there is a HUGE difference between collecting information online and collecting it in the 'real world'. We as a society are just coming to grips with this dilemma. I think that using this term 'harvesting' is inflammatory, and inappropriate. This land owner has chosen to issue permits to lawfully grant permission to be on his property, not to 'harvest' information. I can attest that I have had no further contact as a result of applying for my permit.

 

Fourth, in my opinion, obtaining this permit is simply a way of making these caches legitimate and above board. As one example think about all the LPCs in Walmart or Food Lion parking lots. We generally know that permission was NOT obtained for the vast majority of those. Also most of those locations have posted somewhere on the property that the property is for the use of customers only (at least that's the way it is here in Virginia). Thus, if you are not buying some milk at Food Lion, you should not be on the property, and are technically trespassing. With these trail caches you are being granted explicit permission to be on the property. Isn't that better?

 

Next, my cache does not seem to conflict with this new requirement, unless the wording is changed, since one only has to visit the indicated website, not register or create an account or provide personal information to the website.

Reference:

Guidelines that apply to all cache types-Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

 

I do not feel that these caches are in direct violation of any of the written guidelines, as stated above, but even if they are, by the following reference, it would seem that they could still be allowed:

Guidelines that apply to all cache types:

Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache.

If you wanted to you could 'grant an exception', you could do so based on the merits of the caches. King George county has VERY limited resources. There is not much public property, there is not much commercial development, even the roads are not amenable to placing caches. Most are only two lanes, with no shoulders. This trail is one of a very limited number of places that caches can actually be placed in the county. That is why I went to the effort to find an agreed on way to handle these caches four years ago. I would certainly agree if you said that they needed to be a 5 star terrain because they require special equipment even if they were allowed on their merits.

 

One additional issue, is that I think this new 'guideline' was created without thoroughly considering the consequences. By saying you can't seek a cache that requires a permit there are lots of additional places that need to be disallowed. For example last weekend we did a cache in Leesylvania State Park. You have to obtain a 'permit' in order to park there. A parking permit, or an admission fee is a 'permit'. You do end up providing PII, if you can/do pay with a credit card. If the location takes your license plate number you provide PII If you go somewhere that wants you to put a 'permit' in your car window ( which honeychile said was permissible)- you could be providing PII, if your name, phone number, POC etc. is requested.

I think this new/reworded guideline, needs to be reevaluated. Basically all a permit actually does is make everything totally legal and above board, which is more than can probably be said for the vast majority of caches out there!!! If a cacher does not feel comfortable they can skip the cache, just as a cacher who is afraid of heights could choose to skip a cache that made them feel uncomfortable.

 

I request that you review all of this information and reconsider these caches and allowing caches on this trail in general as I believe they have merit. I don't recall anyone objecting to obtaining a permit, but I do recall lots of positive comments about the trail caches which currently exist. I feel like these caches have great merit and are worthy of being published, even if it is under an exception to this new guideline. Therefore, I would request that caches be allowed on this trail, and that these two caches be allowed to be published, with the modification of a higher terrain rating if necessary, in order to acknowledge the permit requirement.

 

I believe the local caching community would appreciate the quality caches that you can find on this trail being allowed to continue and grow.

 

Thanks for your time in reviewing this situation,

 

Their 'Response':

I understand the comments in your message of February 7 and do not agree with them. The caches placed under the earlier arrangement can be allowed to stay, even though such an arrangement would not be permitted today. We will not publish cache pages where persons seeking the cache must provide their personal information to a third party. That's our final answer.

Link to comment

 

Their 'Response':

I understand the comments in your message of February 7 and do not agree with them. The caches placed under the earlier arrangement can be allowed to stay, even though such an arrangement would not be permitted today. We will not publish cache pages where persons seeking the cache must provide their personal information to a third party. That's our final answer.

 

this makes no sense whatsoever....i am inclined to believe that whomever read/replied did not understand the situation

 

nobody's twisting anyone's arm to do this cache, each cacher has enough information and can decide for themselves if they want to obtain such permit or not

i think most cachers are mature people that don't need a babysitter

 

there are so many trails/parks/conservation areas out there that require permits, which do require the collection of personal information, why is this particular trail any different?

Link to comment

While some of the language in your appeal might be viewed as mildly antagonistic, their brusque response is undeserved. It's obvious you put a lot of careful thought into your arguments. Simply not agreeing without providing reasons and then closing the discussion is quite unfair. I fairly sure that GS didn't start out, or intend to become one. But it sure is looking like a mindless corporation these days. dry.gif

Link to comment

This is guidelines creep if ever there was a case. The guidelines say

 

"Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

As far as I can recall, this guideline was originally added because a number of puzzle caches required signing up for an account on another website to get information needed to find a cache. These were commercial websites that used the information gathered to promote something like a book or a movie and people began to complain when they were spammed by the site. (I still get email from Dan Brown's website because of a cache like this). The guideline was added to indicate these caches would be considered commercial even if there was no charge for using the other website.

 

Over time it appears that other reasons to prohibit these caches were attached to this guideline. Groundspeak put itself in the roll of Big Brother, protecting geoachers from giving out personal information. That is fine, if they want to do this but I would like an explanation from TPTB as to why they have decided to act this way. What guideline is going to be next? Will Groundspeak decide with have to be protected from unsafe caches? Will adequate permission be redefined to mean explicit permission? Will cache owners be told to check the physical log books to detect bogus logs? When the interpretation or rationale for a guideline has changed, Groundspeak should post here in the forum the reasons for this and they can avoid the brusque replies when the rulings are appealed. Finally, if the rule is that you can't be required to give personal information in order to hunt a cache applies not just to websites but to anyone, the wording of the guidelines need to be changed.

Link to comment

Personally, I can decide if I want to supply personal info to a third party, or not. I don't need anyone protecting me, or holding my hand.

 

This is exactly how I feel. Cachers can decide for themselves whether a necessary permit is worthwhile to pursue, or not. That's all there is to it. I could understand a problem if Greykitties was concealing the permit requirement until the cachers arrived at GZ, but she's not -- she's been 100% forthright.

 

I'm disappointed at this outcome. Profoundly.

Link to comment

Hmm. I think this is silly as there are numerous caches that require some sort of permit to hike to, use trails for or gain access into a park for. I had to pay on another website to get a national park permit thing last year. They too collected personal information and credit card information for that one. So I guess that means no more caches in national parks?

 

We have a trail system where I am that is widely used by a lot of people and in theory in order to bike on it you need a permit which you need to give your info to the trail organization to get (I believe through the website is one option). So do all those caches have to go too? And no future caches there?

 

I find this really bizarre.

Link to comment

Yeah, I gotta throw the BS flag on this one too. The reviewer, IMO, has taken the intent behind that rule completely overboard. Do we not have to provide personal info of some level to participate in this game in many ways? Drivers' licenses, hiding permits, buying park passes, even when buying GPSs you usually end up providing personal info and credit card data at least to the folks you buy the gizmo from. Sounds to me like this is a case of a reviewer being far too literal in their interpretation of the guidelines, someone or some organization sticking their nanny where she does not belong (it is our decision to whom we wish to give our info), or someone not having much confidence in the protection their array of site disclaimers afford them from liability claims and a lot of paranoia about getting said claims. In any case, I think this decision and the way it was communicated stinks on ice.

Edited by Semper Questio
Link to comment

What's the harm here? It seems like a legitimate site and it is not like you are going to download.com or some spurious web site. I had to get an adventure pass to find a cache in the National Forest once albeit no downloading was required but I had to give my personal info to slimy looking carny looking guy that was a vendor for the Forest Service - so any caches with such requirements should be disallowed as well.

 

It sounds like the vendor was slimy. I have bought numerous Adventure passes over the years, both Daily and Annual passes. I have never had to supply ANY information. The transaction is the same as buying a pack of gum. "I'd like a daily Adventure pass", "Okay, that will be five dollars, have a good day".

Link to comment

I believe there should be no exemptions to a policy. The appearance that GS is treating some conditions as appropriate while others are not under the same policy is indicative of a bureaucracy run amuck, with no one overseeing logic.

 

IMO, under this policy, there should be NO caches permitted (existing or new) that require the cacher to do anything (including paying a fee to access it).

 

Permitting a cache to exist that requires someone to pay $5 to get to it and then obstructing placement of a cache that requires no fees at all (just obtain a free permit) is plain stupid.

 

I don't expect GS to force absolutism on their own policy in this regard because they more than likely have too many offshoot special considerations to care for. May open caching prosper.

Link to comment

Reading through this, is GS now disallowing ALL permit entry areas for new caches? If so, there will be no new caches in Nebraska state parks any more, because Nebraska State parks require an entry permit. This is one of the best sets of areas to place caches and is mutually beneficial to the geocaching community and the state parks system. If it is still allowed there, then why would it not be allowed here? At first, I thought it was just a private guy asking for people to send their info to him. But, in this case, it's an organization that requires a permit to enter, just like a lot of state parks. So, why is this one a problem with the permits, while the state parks aren't?

Link to comment

This is an excerpt from the denial:

"...this kind of permit system will not be allowed in the future, although it will be honored and grandfathered on existing caches ..."

 

Since this has not been published as a guideline yet (at least I could not find it in the Feb 11 version of the guidelines) it is kind of hard to tell for sure. What I get is that they are against the possible collection (the word harvesting was used) of personal information from a permit. One comment was made about this not being a government organization, and that seemed to make it more objectional. Since my own identity theft problems have stemmed from the federal government I don't see that it being a non-governmental oragization makes it worse!

 

When the recent Virginia State Park caches were published (after all this happened) I questioned the reviewer. You have to pay a fee to enter- that is obtaining a PERMIT to park. Without that permit they would ticket you, and they have the ability through databases obtain all sorts of personal information then!! So, just by entering the property, you are subject to disclosure of personal information. If I CHOSE to pay with a check there would be personal information that could be harvested too. Of course, let me make it clear- I think that the VSP caches should be allowed, as should the DRHT caches. The cacher needs to decide for themselves if they wish to take any and all risks to seek a particular cache.

 

If you want to see something interestering check out offline.cacher's page with all the known parks and locales that require permits to PLACE a cache. What is the difference between placing and seeking???

 

Ya got me!

 

 

Reading through this, is GS now disallowing ALL permit entry areas for new caches? If so, there will be no new caches in Nebraska state parks any more, because Nebraska State parks require an entry permit. This is one of the best sets of areas to place caches and is mutually beneficial to the geocaching community and the state parks system. If it is still allowed there, then why would it not be allowed here? At first, I thought it was just a private guy asking for people to send their info to him. But, in this case, it's an organization that requires a permit to enter, just like a lot of state parks. So, why is this one a problem with the permits, while the state parks aren't?

Link to comment

When the recent Virginia State Park caches were published (after all this happened) I questioned the reviewer. You have to pay a fee to enter- that is obtaining a PERMIT to park. Without that permit they would ticket you, and they have the ability through databases obtain all sorts of personal information then!! So, just by entering the property, you are subject to disclosure of personal information. If I CHOSE to pay with a check there would be personal information that could be harvested too. Of course, let me make it clear- I think that the VSP caches should be allowed, as should the DRHT caches. The cacher needs to decide for themselves if they wish to take any and all risks to seek a particular cache.

 

Did you get a response from the reviewer?

Link to comment

When the recent Virginia State Park caches were published (after all this happened) I questioned the reviewer. You have to pay a fee to enter- that is obtaining a PERMIT to park. Without that permit they would ticket you, and they have the ability through databases obtain all sorts of personal information then!! So, just by entering the property, you are subject to disclosure of personal information. If I CHOSE to pay with a check there would be personal information that could be harvested too. Of course, let me make it clear- I think that the VSP caches should be allowed, as should the DRHT caches. The cacher needs to decide for themselves if they wish to take any and all risks to seek a particular cache.

 

Did you get a response from the reviewer?

 

I got a response that said 'it's not the permit...it's the personal information'. Problem is they are basically one and the same. Again, part of the issue with all this is that Groundspeak has not come out with this in writing to the public, even though they updated their guidelines AFTER all this happened. One has to wonder why...

Link to comment

FWIW, I have never had to provide anything but money to park at a fee area. If I use a check, they get my name and address. I doubt that any harvesting is going on at my local Conservancy areas because only half of them ever get cashed. If I stick cash in the Iron Ranger at a local conservancy lot, a state park lot, or buy an Adventure Pass for the local National Forests, I have provided them nothing but my cars plate # and my $. I simply don't think that this is a viable argument to your cause.

 

I agree that this was not the way I expected Groundspeak to handle this situation. If I apply for a permit to hike in an area and I think the information required for the permit is two intrusive, I have a choice to provide that info, or just drop the whole thing. The idea that Groundspeak feels that they need to protect me, offends me.

 

I wonder if the property owner were to add an acceptable privacy policy to the permit, if Groundspeak would reconsider?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...